U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2004

Wells v. Commissioner

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided August 20, 2004 · Callahan, Rawlinson, Schroeder

108 F. App'x 440

Counsel

William G. Wells, Santa Monica, CA, pro se., B. John Williams, Jr., Shearman & Sterling, LLP, Kenneth L. Greene, Esq., Gary R. Allen, John A. Nolet, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Brown v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2016)
Macdonald v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2014)
Michael J. Kehoe and Karen D. Kehoe v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 2013)
Kehoe v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2013)
Churchill v. Comm'r (United States Tax Court 2011)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM**

William G. Wells appeals pro se the Tax Court’s decision upholding the Commissioner’s determination to proceed with a levy to collect Wells’ unpaid 1991 and 1992 federal income taxes totaling $2.25 million. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482. We review de novo the Tax Court’s conclusions of law, and review for clear error its factual findings. Kelley v. C.I.R., 45 F.3d 348, 350 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.

Wells’ contention that the Tax Court should have remanded his case to the In*441ternal Revenue Service’s Office of Appeals fails because he did not demonstrate that he was deprived of any procedural safeguard mandated by statute or regulation. See 26 U.S.C. § 6330 (providing for collections due process hearing by Appeals Office); 26 C.F.R. § 601.106(a)(2) (divesting Appeals Office of authority to negotiate settlement once petition challenging levy determination is docketed in Tax Court).

We reject Wells’ contention that he was deprived of procedural due process when the Tax Court failed to accommodate adequately his hearing impairment because he offers no evidence that the alleged failure to accommodate prejudiced him. See Alexander Skokai, Inc. v. C.I.R., 34 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1994) (due process claim requires showing of prejudice).

Wells’ remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.